From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
---|---|
To: | depesz(at)depesz(dot)com |
Cc: | Laurenz Albe <laurenz(dot)albe(at)cybertec(dot)at>, pgsql-general <pgsql-general(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: Can we get rid of repeated queries from pg_dump? |
Date: | 2021-08-30 14:11:22 |
Message-ID: | 1349119.1630332682@sss.pgh.pa.us |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-general pgsql-hackers |
hubert depesz lubaczewski <depesz(at)depesz(dot)com> writes:
> On Fri, Aug 27, 2021 at 05:23:23PM -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
>> I experimented with the attached, very quick-n-dirty patch to collect
>> format_type results during the initial scan of pg_type, instead.
> So, I applied it to brand new HEAD from git, Result:
> From total of 9173 queries it went down to 4178.
> Originally 5000 type queries, now 19!
> This is actually strange given that previously it was asking querying
> about 83 separate type oids. But, as far as I was able to check with
> "pg_restore -l" (from -Fc dump), results are the same.
Hm. So we're still no wiser than before about how such a small (in
terms of number of objects) database could have produced so many
getFormattedTypeName calls. Plus, this result raises a new question:
with the patch, I think you shouldn't have seen *any* queries of that
form. Where are the 19 survivors coming from?
I don't suppose you could send me a schema-only dump of that
database, off-list? I'm now quite curious.
> But since we're looking at it, and with both patches applied, I looked
> at the next most common query. Which is:
> [ collection of details about a function ]
> The thing is - even though it was called 1804 times, dump contains data only
> about 107 functions (pg_restore -l schema.dump | grep -c FUNCTION), so it kinda
> seems that 94% of these calls is not needed.
Hm. It's not doing that for *every* row in pg_proc, at least.
I speculate that it is collecting and then not printing the info
about functions that are in extensions --- can you check on
how many there are of those?
(Actually, if you've got a whole lot of objects inside extensions,
maybe that explains the 5000 calls?)
regards, tom lane
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Adrian Klaver | 2021-08-30 14:13:57 | Re: lib and share are installed differently, but why? |
Previous Message | hubert depesz lubaczewski | 2021-08-30 13:54:46 | Re: Arrays - selecting (and not removing) duplicates... |
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Tom Lane | 2021-08-30 14:16:16 | Re: pgsql: Avoid using ambiguous word "positive" in error message. |
Previous Message | Robert Haas | 2021-08-30 14:03:39 | Re: pgsql: Avoid using ambiguous word "positive" in error message. |